• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD FX Benchmarks

Im sharing not searching. on a good note this will do bigadv
 
Last edited:
musky said:
Not a dupe in the DC forum. I never would have looked in the AMD forum. You really don't need to be such a smartass in your replies, either...
Click to expand...

^this

We are also interested in what this proc will do folding wise. Something that most in the AMD section could care less about.

Do any of those benches translate into folding preformance well?
 
Yeah, I saw that in the AMD section. I would not trust those results. They are comparing a 2600k to the bottom end FX 8xxx. They coppied and pasted the sandy bridge results from a previous benchmark and all they did was change the CPU name and clock speed... I would not take it seriously.
 
I'm honestly getting so sick of these supposed leaked benchmarks. I don't give a rats ass unless it is something official or at least credible. I really could care less about synthetic benchmarks.

It is fun to speculate, but sometimes it just gets old after a while. All I know is that the top 8 core bulldozer will likely be going into my next gaming rig upgrade unless BD really is horrible.

What will disappoint me the most though is that we have pretty much been given a heads up that the success of bigbeta means that bigadv probably won't be around forever. This means that we have yet another AMD processor that will be condemned into doing nothing but regular SMP stuff at some point for foldign purposes.
 
Yes, they compared the FX 8100 to a 2600(k). FX 8100 - 2.8ghz 3.7ghz turbo, 2600(k) 3.4ghz 3.8ghz turbo. However I still wouldnt trust that information. Even if it is true, this is not such a bad showing. I fucking hate how everyone makes such a big deal out of pure raw performance when for 90% of the market that doesnt mean shit. Bulldozer will be a folding beast none the less.
 
amdgamer said:
I'm honestly getting so sick of these supposed leaked benchmarks. I don't give a rats ass unless it is something official or at least credible. I really could care less about synthetic benchmarks.

It is fun to speculate, but sometimes it just gets old after a while. All I know is that the top 8 core bulldozer will likely be going into my next gaming rig upgrade unless BD really is horrible.

What will disappoint me the most though is that we have pretty much been given a heads up that the success of bigbeta means that bigadv probably won't be around forever. This means that we have yet another AMD processor that will be condemned into doing nothing but regular SMP stuff at some point for foldign purposes.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. We can take solice in the fact though that the FX8xxx will be at least on an equal playing field thread wise with i7 2600k, so what ever happens with bigadv they will be in the same boat. You can rest assured though that in all manner of theoretical points, bulldozer will be a fairly big upgrade over thuban/magny-cours.
 
Lorien said:
Dupe: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1634142
Try learning how to search.
Click to expand...
We often discuss things in the DC subforum that may have other threads elsewhere. There are DC specific issues that are more relevant to this subforum than the general hardware forums. Take your smartass somewhere else please.

On topic:

Though this is just a "synthetic" benchmark, IMHO crunching performance often follows theoretical performance pretty closely, at least when it comes to CPUs. This isn't surprising to me, but it would be disappointing for sure.

That being said, I'm still probably going to get one.
 
Assuming those are legitimate, I am not really sure why there is a surprise. As mentioned earlier, Intel has a more mature 32nm process and has higher clock speeds as a result. AMD's strategy is to battle/ win the low-cost and multi-core HPC/ server spaces.

Then again, I am pretty much of the opinion these days that the mid-range desktop CPU market is going to hollow-out in the near future unless someone creates a mass-appeal app (think WoW but with Facebook adoption rates) that needs significantly more than what ARM and the <$100 x86 market can offer.
 
for those that did not read the thread in the AMD section, JF-AMD made some posts in it that made it sound like it maybe based off of early production samples, IIRC....then again that may have been in another thread
 
W.Feather said:
for those that did not read the thread in the AMD section, JF-AMD made some posts in it that made it sound like it maybe based off of early production samples, IIRC....then again that may have been in another thread
Click to expand...
They may be early samples, but that doesn't change the fact that their performance is not impressive at all.
 
No it does not make the performance impressive, however the initial BD samples that went out (B0 i believe) are known to have shit performance, which is why there are several different steppings for ES's

Zero82z said:
They may be early samples, but that doesn't change the fact that their performance is not impressive at all.
Click to expand...
 
W.Feather said:
No it does not make the performance impressive, however the initial BD samples that went out (B0 i believe) are known to have shit performance, which is why there are several different steppings for ES's
Click to expand...

I'm not very familiar with those benchmarks, but how well they utilize multithreading will have a huge impact in how BD performs. Fortunately as we all know F@H will peg that thing at 800% ad infinitum.:D
 
W.Feather said:
No it does not make the performance impressive, however the initial BD samples that went out (B0 i believe) are known to have shit performance, which is why there are several different steppings for ES's
Click to expand...

first ones were B0, then there was 2 more revisions. the current retail versions coming out later this month or early october will be the B2 stepping and most likely when the 8170 comes out next year it will be the B3 chips.

B0's shitty performance is the reason bulldozer has been delayed so much, B1 wasn't much better, it was fine for server level clocks but didn't scale worth a damn past 3Ghz so it was scrapped for the B2 stepping which must of fixed the problem since they are finally releasing them.

we only have a 10 days(Sept. 19th) left til the NDA expires so trying to speculate/argue over some synthetic benchmarks a waste.
 
Ya, my point is that the thoughts goin around is that the leaked Sandra benchmarks are of B0/B1, with unoptimized(not release) BIOS's....only time will tell i guess

sirmonkey1985 said:
first ones were B0, then there was 2 more revisions. the current retail versions coming out later this month or early october will be the B2 stepping and most likely when the 8170 comes out next year it will be the B3 chips.

B0's shitty performance is the reason bulldozer has been delayed so much, B1 wasn't much better, it was fine for server level clocks but didn't scale worth a damn past 3Ghz so it was scrapped for the B2 stepping which must of fixed the problem since they are finally releasing them.

we only have a 10 days(Sept. 19th) left til the NDA expires so trying to speculate/argue over some synthetic benchmarks a waste.
Click to expand...
 
Well, guess we'll see how well she overclocks.



musky said:
You really don't need to be such a smartass in your replies, either...
Click to expand...

It's Lorien. I'm not sure he knows how to post any other way.
 
Last edited:
Parja said:
Well, guess we'll see how well she overclocks.





It's Lorien. I'm not sure he knows how to post any other way.
Click to expand...

That is what worries me, as I don't think i've ever seen brand new AMD chips on a new architecture ever come out overclocking the way Intel's stuff often does when they first come out. If the rumors are true that AMD is having trouble achieving high enough clocks to be competitive, then it could mean that AMD is already juicing their chips as hard as possible.
 
I think these will be fine chips, I'm sure they will be priced according to performance. Unfortunatly, I felt like this was going to be the scenario. I just didn't see AMD pulling a magic rabbit out of their hat this time. I will, of-course, reserve judgement for when I see benchmarks done with actual applications.
 
amdgamer said:
That is what worries me, as I don't think i've ever seen brand new AMD chips on a new architecture ever come out overclocking the way Intel's stuff often does when they first come out. If the rumors are true that AMD is having trouble achieving high enough clocks to be competitive, then it could mean that AMD is already juicing their chips as hard as possible.
Click to expand...
sounds a lot like the launch of Barcelona
 
amdgamer said:
That is what worries me, as I don't think i've ever seen brand new AMD chips on a new architecture ever come out overclocking the way Intel's stuff often does when they first come out. If the rumors are true that AMD is having trouble achieving high enough clocks to be competitive, then it could mean that AMD is already juicing their chips as hard as possible.
Click to expand...

umm.. i'm not sure how long you have been following AMD processors and overclocking but thats a wee bit far from reality between intel and AMD as far as overclocking goes. as far as voltage goes AMD has always used a much higher voltage then intel has in their processors which has everything to do with the silicon they use.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
umm.. i'm not sure how long you have been following AMD processors and overclocking but thats a wee bit far from reality between intel and AMD as far as overclocking goes.
Click to expand...
When's the last time AMD released a new product that overclocked as well as Intel's latest? Oh right, never.
 
Zero82z said:
When's the last time AMD released a new product that overclocked as well as Intel's latest? Oh right, never.
Click to expand...

When's the last time Intel released a product that overclocked as well as Intel's lates? Oh right, Never.. :rolleyes:
 
Zero82z said:
You've got me there. But even so, that was more than ten years ago. Ever since the P4 was released, AMD has never been able to equal Intel when it comes to overclocking.
Click to expand...

This is true, Intel's process advantage and lack of competition on the high end means Intel is able to keep a ton of speed on reserve and focus on power instead (notice their dropping TDP's at the high end.)

As another poster mentioned, this feels alot like the Phenom architecture lauch....
 
Seems like 4 to 5 can be done with what we are used to doing here anyways.

:cool:
 
I wonder what kind of headroom the 16 core CPU's will have. 64 cores at 8 ghz on LN2. I bet that would fun! Even 64 cores at 4 GHz would be impressive.
 
Grandpa_01 said:
8.49Ghz was hit by Chewy new world record. http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Breaks-Frequency-Record-with-Upcoming-FX-Processor/
Click to expand...

From that article:
Note that 8.49GHz was attained with only two of the processor’s eight cores enabled.
Click to expand...

It's cool for making a world record, but still, only two cores...

I really like AMD but I have been very disappointed in their performance since the Phenom I was released. They are great for budget systems, but at this point Intel has them beat in almost every single aspect, with the exception of scalability on the G34 socket Opterons.

I'm hoping AMD will eventually recover, but ever since they acquired ATI back in 2006, their processors have just gone down hill, unfortunately.
 
It also mentioned an 8.429 GHz speed, which, I am assuming here, was run on with all cores active.

There's probably a CPU-Z validation screen floating around somewhere for all of the runs.
 
Briliu said:
It also mentioned an 8.429 GHz speed, which, I am assuming here, was run on with all cores active.

There's probably a CPU-Z validation screen floating around somewhere for all of the runs.
Click to expand...

Read my post right above yours and the article, it never said that speed with all cores active.
 
Thats still impressive even on two cores... I think I would be impressed with one core at that speed... I dont even think celerons or sempron's hit that speed under LN2...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top